Subject: [PATCH v3 1/4] remoteproc: introduce rproc_get_by_phandle API

From: [email-masked] (Dave Gerlach)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 09:33:28 -0500

Ohad,
On 05/16/2015 02:18 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> Hi Suman,
> 
> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Suman Anna <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> On 05/09/2015 02:39 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Dave Gerlach <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>> This patch uses the code removed by commit 40e575b1d0b3 ("remoteproc:
>>>> remove the get_by_name/put API") for the ref counting a rproc klist
>>>> code but has rproc_get_by_name replaced with an rproc_get_by_phandle API.
>>>
>>> The general idea makes sense to me, but I'm not sure we really do need
>>> a klist here, since the usage profile of this list is expected to be
>>> super simple: very small number of accessors, looking for small number
>>> of list members a small number of times, and probably never do need to
>>> modify the list while accessing it.
>>>
>>> I suspect that the code would be simpler to maintain, debug and
>>> understand if we just use a simple list with a simple locking
>>> methodology here.
>>
>> The klist usage is something that we restored from previous remoteproc
>> core code as used by the rproc_get_by_name() API. This was removed in
>> commit 40e575b1d0b3 ("remoteproc: remove the get_by_name/put API"). We
>> chose to use the code that had been present before rather than inventing
>> something new all over again. If you feel that a regular list is the way
>> to go forward, we can make the switch.
> 
> Yes, please. Using a regular list with a simple locking methodology
> should make the code easier to understand and debug.

Ok, that makes sense, we can change this. Thanks for your input.

Regards,
Dave

> Thanks,
> Ohad.